Acupuncture

[GreasyMonkey]

Seems like I'm not the only Cherry Picker out there <Snip>

If you are implying that I have "Cherry picked" the studies, you are simply WRONG.
I have not read, nor been convined as to the efficiacy or otherwise of the practice by any study, or confirmation bias (also called "I paid for for so it must work", according to Gregod).

After paying for twelve years of physiotherapy and other "western" medical treatments for neck and thoracic spinal pain (which all failed miserably), then being given the offer of trying accupuncture (without payment, or promises), I have had near-complete relief from the pain for the past twenty-four years.
I seek accupuncture when it I consider it to be the most suitable treatment for the ailment under consideration.

I have never suggested that the process works for everyone, or everytime or every ailment.

Yes, there are many charlatans in the world of alternative "medicine" making unsubstantiated claims for treatments that they wish to promote, nearly always to the betterment of their wallets.

From my time in Hangzhou (China), where I lived in close proximity to the Univeristy of Traditional Medicine and become friends with a number of lecturer's and students of the college, I discovered that they often laugh at the claims of treatments obtained by accupuncture by some alternative practicioners.
Within the realm of Chinese Traditional Medicine there is a specific place in the treatment regime for accupuncture, just as Physiotherapy or Neurosurgery have their places within the Western Medicine regime.

It is your perogative to believe as you wish, but why the need to rubbish or put-down those who may have other views?
The OP asked for opinions, of which I believe they would welcome yours and other dissenters.
For yourself and Alex Simmons to haughtily start preaching about Confirmation Bias and demanding scientific studies is arrogant and dismissive im my view.

 

[gregod]

...

It is your perogative to believe as you wish, but why the need to rubbish or put-down those who may have other views?
The OP asked for opinions, of which I believe they would welcome yours and other dissenters.
For yourself and Alex Simmons to haughtily start preaching about Confirmation Bias and demanding scientific studies is arrogant and dismissive im my view.

i don't believe acupuncture doesn't work. i know it doesn't. the science doesn't support it. it is the same way that i know the tooth fairy doesn't collect teeth and there is no santa claus delivering toys to all of the good little girls and boys. so while i may be rubbishing acupuncture, i have not put down anybody doing it, although i doubt you would not hesitate to ridicule an adult who still believed in the tooth fairy or santa.

while we are dismissive of things for which there is no evidence, why is it arrogant demand reality? should the FDA approve drugs based on how strongly the company believes that its drug or therapy works? or should the FDA demand evidence? because of political considerations congress has produced CAM centers within the NIH and NIC, wasted hundreds of millions of dollars and not produced one bit of evidence that any of that stuff works.

frankly, i don't care if you choose to waste your time and money on that stuff, but to advocate others do so is irresponsible and reprehensible.

 

[CoachFergie]

If you are implying that I have "Cherry picked" the studies, you are simply WRONG.

Better check your reading skills as well as that nasty case of confirmation bias. Elapid was the one who tried to cherry pick several studies to show support for acupuncture but was too lazy to read them as most concluded the evidence was lacking. 2 secs on google without having to log into my Uni account uncovered numerous other reviews showing that there is little efficacy for acupuncture.

After paying for twelve years of physiotherapy and other "western" medical treatments for neck and thoracic spinal pain (which all failed miserably), then being given the offer of trying accupuncture (without payment, or promises), I have had near-complete relief from the pain for the past twenty-four years.
I seek accupuncture when it I consider it to be the most suitable treatment for the ailment under consideration.

Cool story Bro!

It is your perogative to believe as you wish, but why the need to rubbish or put-down those who may have other views?

You're allowed to believe in whatever you want and have as many needles jabbed into you as you wish. It's your claims we are rubbishing.

The OP asked for opinions, of which I believe they would welcome yours and other dissenters.

Did you read his response to Alex? Dude just wanted his confirmation bias stroked.

For yourself and Alex Simmons to haughtily start preaching about Confirmation Bias and demanding scientific studies is arrogant and dismissive im my view.

Then call me Mr Arrogant and Dismissive. Damn will have to get new business cards done!

 

[elapid]

elapid, what is the point of asking for people's thoughts if you are going to weigh the subjective (anecdote) and objective (science) equally or discount the objective all together? as CF said, you are just looking to confirm your bias.

What is my bias? In regards to acupucture, I have no bias. As I have previously written in this thread:

I have not used or recommended acupuncture in my own practice.

I wll add to this that I have not used acupuncture personally.

Why I decided to get involved in this thread was because of the call for scientific proof of the benefits of acupuncture, and on a broader level to show how the scientific literature is frequently used to support your own agenda or opinion. This is evidenced by the posts in this thread.

People asked for scientific proof of the benefits of acupunctureand said it was lacking. I produced 17,000+ articles on acupuncture alone. Then they said this wasn't enough evidence because the

well reported data [is] ... mostly speculation.

Then I produced 12 recent meta-analyses in which 75% of these meta-analyses supported the use of acupuncture and you ignore these results and other members criticize those findings for exactly the same reasons I predicted earlier in this thread:

You ask for peer-reviewed scientific literature and then when it is provided you trash it because of potential conflict of interest, bias, flaws in the experimental design, or some other reason, justified or not.

Yes, there will always be debate and that's the point of publishing research findings. When there is enough literature out there on a certain topic, then you can pick and chose which ones suit your purposes and trash the other ones for whatever reasons you chose.

I continued in this thread because I was sucked into the troll-like behaviour of another member. I am disappointed that I did because I perpetuated the derailment of this thread. The OP asked for

firsthand accounts of treatment, whether sports-related or not.

and after some members reported their personal experience the OP then gets 5 pages of drivel derailing the thread, drivel that I admittedly contributed to, but drivel that is essentially being driven by a troll who I will no longer respond to because he is just not worth another second of my time.

 

[gregod]

..
...
.

you did not even read the links that you posted which clearly pointed out the lack of evidence for acupuncture.

you are right about one thing. you should keep you and your several logical fallacies out of this thread because you are just embarrassing yourself.

 

[elapid]

you did not even read the links that you posted which clearly pointed out the lack of evidence for acupuncture.

Did you read the links? Where is the clear lack of evidence? Eight of the 12 papers clearly state a statistically significant benefit, one of the 12 papers clearly states a statistically significant benefit in the results but not in their conclusion, one of the 12 papers states a significant but not clinically-relevant benefit, and two of the 12 papers show no benefit.

If you and CF bothered to read posts that don't fit with your opinion then you would have read that I accurately summarized these findings in an earlier post:

acupuncture was found to have a significant effect for pain management during labor, pain during mensuration, postoperative pain, disability with neck disorders, neck pain, fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis (significant, but small), chronic pain, migraines (both during attacks and for routine care); another review found that there was a significant but not clinically relevant effect of acupuncture in the management of pain regardless of the cause; the effect was present but not significant for jaw disorders; but not for the treatment of autism. Nine out of 12 meta-analyses supported the use of acupuncture in the treatment of various disorders causing pain ... so 75% showing a significant and clinically relevant effect is more than just mere "speculation".

You and CF are just highlighting your own ignorance, laziness, lack of comprehension skills, and lack of objectivity.

 

[GreasyMonkey]

i don't believe acupuncture doesn't work. i know it doesn't. the science doesn't support it.

You do NOT know - you believe, as you are reliant on the reported perceptions, opinions and (possible) biases of others who have published and/or reviewed the literature you are dependent on.

All I KNOW is what I have experienced for myself, everything else is a belief.

but to advocate others do so is irresponsible and reprehensible.

Please show me where I have advocated the use of accupuncture to others? NOWHERE, as I have only given an account of my own experiences.

For you to claim that I have is irresponsible and reprehensible.

Now to go and update my ignore list......

 

[CoachFergie]

Again the studies Elapid posted...

Autism: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21901712

Current evidence does not support the use of acupuncture for treatment of ASD. There is no conclusive evidence that acupuncture is effective for treatment of ASD in children and no RCTs have been carried out with adults. Further high quality trials of larger size and longer follow-up are needed.

Labor pain: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21735441

Acupuncture and acupressure may have a role with reducing pain, increasing satisfaction with pain management and reduced use of pharmacological management. However, there is a need for further research.

Jaw disorders: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21354460

In conclusion, our systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate that the evidence for acupuncture as a symptomatic treatment of TMD is limited. Further rigorous studies are, however, required to establish beyond doubt whether acupuncture has therapeutic value for this indication.

Menstrual pains: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21249697

Acupuncture may reduce period pain, however there is a need for further well-designed randomised controlled trials.

Disability with neck pain: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20482474

Some conservative interventions for neck pain are effective in the short term. Few interventions that have been investigated have shown longer term effects that are better than placebo or minimal intervention.

Osteoarthritis: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20091527

Sham-controlled trials show statistically significant benefits; however, these benefits are small, do not meet our pre-defined thresholds for clinical relevance, and are probably due at least partially to placebo effects from incomplete blinding. Waiting list-controlled trials of acupuncture for peripheral joint osteoarthritis suggest statistically significant and clinically relevant benefits, much of which may be due to expectation or placebo effects.

Chronic pain: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20070551

The accumulating evidence from recent reviews suggests that acupuncture is more than a placebo for commonly occurring chronic pain conditions. If this conclusion is correct, then we ask the question: is it now time to shift research priorities away from asking placebo-related questions and shift toward asking more practical questions about whether the overall benefit is clinically meaningful and cost-effective?

Neck pain: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19216662

The quantitative meta-analysis conducted in this review confirmed the short-term effectiveness and efficacy of acupuncture in the treatment of neck pain. Further studies that address the long-term efficacy of acupuncture for neck pain are warranted.

General pain management: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19174438

A small analgesic effect of acupuncture was found, which seems to lack clinical relevance and cannot be clearly distinguished from bias. Whether needling at acupuncture points, or at any site, reduces pain independently of the psychological impact of the treatment ritual is unclear.

Migraine: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19160193

In the previous version of this review, evidence in support of acupuncture for migraine prophylaxis was considered promising but insufficient. Now, with 12 additional trials, there is consistent evidence that acupuncture provides additional benefit to treatment of acute migraine attacks only or to routine care. There is no evidence for an effect of 'true' acupuncture over sham interventions, though this is difficult to interpret, as exact point location could be of limited importance. Available studies suggest that acupuncture is at least as effective as, or possibly more effective than, prophylactic drug treatment, and has fewer adverse effects. Acupuncture should be considered a treatment option for patients willing to undergo this treatment.

So only one review suggests that acupuncture has a real effect and that was a meta analysis of a meta analysis. All the other reviews either concluded no benefit or more work was needed to be done to support the use of acupuncture.

http://summaries.cochrane.org/search/site/acupuncture

That is just one review site. Not sure what field you are in but that level of laziness would be most concerning if you consider yourself a professional.

 

[CoachFergie]

You do NOT know - you believe, as you are reliant on the reported perceptions, opinions and (possible) biases of others who have published and/or reviewed the literature you are dependent on.

Outstanding, your lack of understanding on the scientific process, peer review and research methods is hilarious.

All I KNOW is what I have experienced for myself, everything else is a belief.

Outstanding. That is the thing with n=1's. No control to eliminate the possibility of chance affecting the result.

 

[gregod]

You do NOT know - you believe, as you are reliant on the reported perceptions, opinions and (possible) biases of others who have published and/or reviewed the literature you are dependent on.

All I KNOW is what I have experienced for myself, everything else is a belief.



Please show me where I have advocated the use of accupuncture to others? NOWHERE, as I have only given an account of my own experiences.

For you to claim that I have is irresponsible and reprehensible.

Now to go and update my ignore list......

you obviously do not know how the scientific method and peer review work. this framework prevents subjectivity from affecting the results by producing reproducible results. for example, recently there was a physicist who was popular with the climate denial set. he did not like the methodology of climate scientists and embarked on his own quest to see if the data supported or refuted climate change. his ultimate conclusion was that the data and methodology do indeed support climate change. this is the scientific method. he came in with a preconceived notion, but he followed rigorous scientific principles which minimize fudging and came to an objective conclusion.

having an adequate mathematic and scientific background is essential to being well-informed on anything from not getting ripped off by sCAM, to understanding medicare or even how the economy works.

so, once again, i do know that acupuncture is not a viable treatment.

perhaps you should look up the word "advocate". it means to publicly support or recommend. this web forum is public. you support acupuncture. QED

perhaps also you should look up "irresponsible" and "reprehensible", as well.

finally, go ahead and update your ignore list. this is a bit cowardly IMO, but know that i will continue to read your posts.

when i read stuff like this, it is no wonder that americans are faced with the choice between perry, bachman, bush, paul and a whole lot of other "know-nothings" and one say-one-thing-and-do-the-other.

 

[gregod]

Outstanding, your lack of understanding on the scientific process, peer review and research methods is hilarious.

...

no coach. it is not hilarious. it is sad

 

[CoachFergie]

Yeah true. My blocked list is for people who couldn't come up with a decent argument and resorted to ad hominem attacks.

 

[gregod]

Yeah true. My blocked list is for people who couldn't come up with a decent argument and resorted to ad hominem attacks.

don't knock ad hominem attacks. they are often very funny. sometimes even intentionally so.

 

[CoachFergie]

Unless Boing has lifted his game recently I suspect it's an area we may disagree on

 

[elapid]

no coach. it is not hilarious. it is sad

Sad is you boneheads patting each other on the back for showing your ignorance and stupidity.

First, you call for scientific evidence and it is provided. Then you trash it as predicted because it does not fit into your opinion/agenda.

Second, you accuse me of cherry-picking despite selecting the most recent meta-analyses on individual diseases/ailments/conditions.

Third, you accuse me of not reading the scientific papers cited when I obviously have read them, but you have not been able to comprehend the summary I had written twice or the papers themselves. Let me hold your bonehead hands and lead you through those papers.

I have already admitted that two of these papers (autism and jaw disorders) do not support the use of acupuncture and a third (general pain) shows a significant but not clinically relevant effect. I know you guys don't read too good, but I've admitted this twice already.

Now for #2, let's go through the remaining 9 papers and pick out the relevant sections from the abstracts and see how they differ from CF's statement:

So only one review suggests that acupuncture has a real effect and that was a meta analysis of a meta analysis.

I have underlined the sections in which the authors have STATED that acupuncture has a significant effect. I have left CF's bolded sections and summarized each paper in italics to highlight his lack of comprehension and deliberate attempts to manipulate the findings to his fit his own agenda/opinion.

Labor pain: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21735441

Less intense pain was found from acupuncture compared with no intervention ... One trial increased satisfaction with pain relief compared with placebo control ... Reduced use of pharmacological analgesia was found in one trial of acupuncture compared with placebo ... Fewer instrumental deliveries from acupuncture were found compared with standard care.

Acupuncture and acupressure may have a role with reducing pain, increasing satisfaction with pain management and reduced use of pharmacological management. However, there is a need for further research.

I know it is hard for you to read more than a few lines of conclusions, but acupuncture has been shown to have a significant effect over placebos and standard care in the management of labor pain. The need for further research does not negate these findings. If you boneheads had any scientific skills at all you would realize that there is always the need for further research.

Menstrual pains: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21249697

There was an improvement in pain relief from acupuncture compared with a placebo control ... In two trials acupuncture reduced menstrual symptoms (for example nausea, back pain) compared with medication ... in one trial acupuncture reduced menstrual symptoms compared with Chinese herbs ... one trial acupuncture improved quality of life compared with usual care.

Acupuncture may reduce period pain, however there is a need for further well-designed randomised controlled trials.

Again, acupuncture has a significant effect on the management of menstrual pains compared to placebos and medication. But you would only know this if you bothered to read the entire abstract and not just the conclusion. Again, a statement that further research is required does not negate these findings.

Disability with neck pain: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20482474

There was a significant short-term effect on disability for acupuncture (MD -8, 95% CI -13 to -2) and manual therapy (MD -6, 95% CI -11 to -2).

Some conservative interventions for neck pain are effective in the short term. Few interventions that have been investigated have shown longer term effects that are better than placebo or minimal intervention.

Again, the details are in the meat of the abstract and not the conclusion. You boneheads should really develop reading and scientific skills if you want to come to the table. Acupuncture has a significant short-term effect in managing neck pain. Because it does not have a long-term effect does not negate the fact it has a significant effect in the short-term.

Osteoarthritis: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20091527

In comparison with a sham control, acupuncture showed statistically significant, short-term improvements in osteoarthritis pain ... and function ... however, these pooled short-term benefits did not meet our predefined thresholds for clinical relevance ... Additionally, restriction to sham-controlled trials using shams judged most likely to adequately blind participants to treatment assignment (which were also the same shams judged most likely to have physiological activity), reduced heterogeneity and resulted in pooled short-term benefits of acupuncture that were smaller and non-significant. In comparison with sham acupuncture at the six-month follow-up, acupuncture showed borderline statistically significant, clinically irrelevant improvements in osteoarthritis pain ... and function. In a secondary analysis versus a waiting list control, acupuncture was associated with statistically significant, clinically relevant short-term improvements in osteoarthritis pain ... and function ... In the head-on comparisons of acupuncture with the 'supervised osteoarthritis education' and the 'physician consultation' control groups, acupuncture was associated with clinically relevant short- and long-term improvements in pain and function. In the head on comparisons of acupuncture with 'home exercises/advice leaflet' and 'supervised exercise', acupuncture was associated with similar treatment effects as the controls. Acupuncture as an adjuvant to an exercise based physiotherapy program did not result in any greater improvements than the exercise program alone. Information on safety was reported in only 8 trials and even in these trials there was limited reporting and heterogeneous methods.

Sham-controlled trials show statistically significant benefits; however, these benefits are small, do not meet our pre-defined thresholds for clinical relevance, and are probably due at least partially to placebo effects from incomplete blinding. Waiting list-controlled trials of acupuncture for peripheral joint osteoarthritis suggest statistically significant and clinically relevant benefits, much of which may be due to expectation or placebo effects.

Acupuncture shows some clinically significant effects, but in some the effects are significant but not clinically relevant, and in others acupuncture is neither significant nor clinically relevant.

Chronic pain: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20070551

The accumulating evidence from recent reviews suggests that acupuncture is more than a placebo for commonly occurring chronic pain conditions. If this conclusion is correct, then we ask the question: is it now time to shift research priorities away from asking placebo-related questions and shift toward asking more practical questions about whether the overall benefit is clinically meaningful and cost-effective?

I will not elaborate on this one because it seems as though CF has not tried to negate the clinically significant effects of acupuncture on the management of chronic pain with an unrelated statement.

Neck pain: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19216662

The quantitative meta-analysis conducted in this review confirmed the short-term effectiveness and efficacy of acupuncture in the treatment of neck pain. Further studies that address the long-term efficacy of acupuncture for neck pain are warranted.

Ah, but here we are again. Acupuncture has a significant effect on the short-term management of neck pain. Period. But CF in all of his scientific prowess and wisdom believes these significant results are negated by the call for more studies on long-term management. A significant effect is a significant effect. Long-term conservative management, as highlighted by the previous meta-analysis on neck pain, is rarely effective regardless of the technique or drug.

Migraine: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19160193

In the previous version of this review, evidence in support of acupuncture for migraine prophylaxis was considered promising but insufficient. Now, with 12 additional trials, there is consistent evidence that acupuncture provides additional benefit to treatment of acute migraine attacks only or to routine care. There is no evidence for an effect of 'true' acupuncture over sham interventions, though this is difficult to interpret, as exact point location could be of limited importance. Available studies suggest that acupuncture is at least as effective as, or possibly more effective than, prophylactic drug treatment, and has fewer adverse effects. Acupuncture should be considered a treatment option for patients willing to undergo this treatment.

Wow, this is a great one. In the first sentence of the conclusion, the authors state they had insufficient evidence to support acupuncture for treatment of migraines. But guess what? Further research was done ... and CF bolds the only sentence in the entire abstract that is not glowing about the significant and clinically relevant effects of acupuncture in comparison to drugs (and with less side effects).

 

[elapid]

no coach. it is not hilarious. it is sad

Previous post was too long, so here is the summary to that post:

I know you two are boneheads and you hide your ignorance behind all your bravado BS, so I guess you will not see your own biases and complete lack of objectivity. But this entire exercise, other than continuing to derail this thread, at the very least shows that scientific literature can be manipulated to support your own opinion and/or agenda. Particularly when the likes of you and CF call for scientific proof and don't provide any yourselves (laziness) and state that only one of the cited papers found clinically significant results when there were in fact eight papers that showed clinically significant effects (lack of comprehension and deliberate manipulation showing lack of objectivity and bias and complete lack of scientific skills). So all you are really trying to do is support your own opinion with the scientific literature and doing a pi$$ poor job of it. You lambast those valuing n=1 anecdotal evidence, but in fact are worse because you manipulate scientific evidence to support your own n=1.

 

[gregod]

...
see above
...

i'll cop to laziness, because i have neither the time nor inclination to teach you about science, but i stand by the criticism that you don't understand what you are reading.

coach and i have not manipulated or cherry-picked anything. when we speak of research we are talking about direct, controlled, blinded studies. research like this shows no evidence of the efficacy of acupuncture. you have quoted meta-analyses which are samples of various studies all of which have different control criteria and methodologies. that is why all of the studies above add the caveat, "further study is needed" and have poor confidence intervals. furthermore, meta-analysis like what you quoted would never be used to approve any methodology. it is only used to look for links and areas of further study. when further randomized, controlled, blinded research is done on acupuncture, it has been shown every time that it does not work or works only as good as placebo.

there are several other mistakes in your characterizations of the research you quoted, but hopefully the above will help you understand what CF and i mean. i am not accusing you of lying or manipulation, however it is obvious you don't have the science or math background to know what you quoted.

furthermore, just because you don't like what we have to say does not mean it is off topic.

 

[elapid]

coach and i have not manipulated or cherry-picked anything.

CF has manipulated the conclusions as evidenced by negating statisatically and clinically relevant results with the catch call for further research.

coach and i have not manipulated or cherry-picked anything. when we speak of research we are talking about direct, controlled, blinded studies. research like this shows no evidence of the efficacy of acupuncture.

That is a prime example of cherry-picking. One paper out of 17,000+ papers on acupuncture.

you have quoted meta-analyses which are samples of various studies all of which have different control criteria and methodologies.

You obviously do not understand meta-analyses. Meta-analyses include only studies that meet their strict criteria and they control for criteria and methodologies. That is why a meta-analysis is always stronger than a single well-designed and conducted study.

when further randomized, controlled, blinded research is done on acupuncture, it has been shown every time that it does not work or works only as good as placebo.

Again, cherry-picking. Never say never:

Migraine: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19160193

In the previous version of this review, evidence in support of acupuncture for migraine prophylaxis was considered promising but insufficient. Now, with 12 additional trials, there is consistent evidence that acupuncture provides additional benefit to treatment of acute migraine attacks only or to routine care.

Twelve additional studies showed "consistent evidence that acupuncture provides additional benefit to treatment of acute migraine attacks only or to routine care."

there are several other mistakes in your characterizations of the research you quoted, but hopefully the above will help you understand what CF and i mean. i am not accusing you of lying or manipulation, however it is obvious you don't have the science or math background to know what you quoted.

You have shown me nothing than to further highlight your ignorance and lack of scientific ability. Show me the "several other mistakes".

Furthermore, I am accusing you both of manipulating the scientific literature to suit your own opinion and agenda, ignoring the data to suit your own opinions, and showing a bias and a lack of objectivity and knowledge of scientific research and study design.

I have published over 50 peer-reviewed scientific papers and am on the editorial board of three journals. What are your credentials to be able to claim that I don't have the science background to know what I quoted?

furthermore, just because you don't like what we have to say does not mean it is off topic.

Ah, the OP asked for first-hand opinions of member's experience with acupuncture. What we are discussing is definitely off-topic.

 

[gregod]

...

you win the internets.

I have published over 50 peer-reviewed scientific papers and am on the editorial board of three journals. What are your credentials to be able to claim that I don't have the science background to know what I quoted?

i sooooo don't believe this and i will eat my hat if you have the testicular fortitude to back this up with evidence.

 

[oldborn]

So Martin.308 could we just permanently ban fargo and gregod

 

[gregod]

Well Done elapid, I would just said Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out!
So Martin.308 could we just permanently ban fargo and gregod

ban us for what reason?

 

[CoachFergie]

ban us for what reason?

One would only receive a ban for making off topic posts, trolling or baiting others.

 

[oldborn]

ban us for what reason?

No really, you *** want us to believe that 2000 years old traditional medicine is somehow no good and is simply trash, but "modern western" pharmaceutical well payed and based medicine are just awesome

 

[CoachFergie]

CF has manipulated the conclusions as evidenced by negating statisatically and clinically relevant results with the catch call for further research.

That for the most part suggested the need for further study.

You obviously do not understand meta-analyses. Meta-analyses include only studies that meet their strict criteria and they control for criteria and methodologies. That is why a meta-analysis is always stronger than a single well-designed and conducted study.

Publication bias. Very unlikely a study will be published that shows no effect.

Furthermore, I am accusing you both of manipulating the scientific literature to suit your own opinion and agenda, ignoring the data to suit your own opinions, and showing a bias and a lack of objectivity and knowledge of scientific research and study design.

I have no agenda beyond ensuring when my riders are injured they get the best treatment.

I have published over 50 peer-reviewed scientific papers and am on the editorial board of three journals. What are your credentials to be able to claim that I don't have the science background to know what I quoted?

On the Internet anyone can claim anything.

Ah, the OP asked for first-hand opinions of member's experience with acupuncture. What we are discussing is definitely off-topic.

Yes, he wanted his confirmation bias stroked.

 

[gregod]

***

ok, i think i get it. you are just takin' the piss.